About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
CNNW 13
MSNBCW 13
CSPAN 4
KQED (PBS) 3
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
KQEH (PBS) 2
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 49
Search Results 0 to 48 of about 49 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. >> we reignited a fundamental debate. >> scott: outside city hall, gays and lesbians lines up around the block. about 4,000 couples tied the knot. it was not to last. at the urging of then governor schwarzenegger, the supreme court stopped the marriages. over the years, it snaked its way through the judicial system. in 2008, ruling banning gay unions violated the state constitution. it cannot be denied based on it. >> so goes the rest of the nation. it's inevitable. this door's wide open now. it's going to happen. whether you like it or not. >> scott: the ruling triggered a wave of joyful weddings this time across the state. including the celebrated union of two long time lesbian activists t
of the cases, doma and prop 8 have to do with same-sex marriage. they are different. explain. >> the defense of marriage act called doma was enacted in 1996. proposition 8 is a california measure enacted in 2008. both are part of what we think as a backlash to early efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. those go back further than gavin newsom in 1993 when hawaii looked like it would legalize same-sex marriage. only when hawaii looked like it would do that, congress passed doma. the section of doma that is argued next week before the supreme court says the federal government will not recognize in the many programs a same-sex marriage that is recognized by the state. in terms of estate tax and benefits, some 1,000 programs. if a couple is legally married in the eyes of its is state, it is not married in the eyes of the federal government. that is a new policy for the federal government. prop 8 only speaks to california and bans same-sex marriage in california. >> scott: vik, they are different, but intersect. we will learn about what the justices feel about doma on tuesday when they ask quest
on two important cases. the defense of marriage act and california's proposition 8. doma designed emergency as a legal union between a man and a woman and keeps same-sex couples from getting the same benefits as couples. in fact, bill clinton who signed doma into law when he was president, is now asking the u.s. supreme court to overturn it. let's bring in cnn legal contributor powell cowen. how much will the reversal potentially make? >> supreme court justices would tell you they're immune from politicians lobbying them. they're appointed for life by the president, and the founding fathers frankly set up the system so you would have sort of an independent judiciary. i don't think bill clinton's position will have a major impact on the court. >> so what the constitutional argument that will be made to keep doma in place? >> well, there are two cases before the court this week. one on tuesday and one on wednesday. the first on tuesday is called the prop 8 case. california case, and it's very interesting because the california supreme court said gay marriage is legal. they said it's
known as doma, first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996 is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide there whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite section sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c. and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a pos
a little bit. and doma and prop 8 those are the gay rights issues the supreme court is going to take up. >> the question of same-sex marriage, now before the supreme court. on tuesday and wednesday the justices hear oral arguments of two cases. major implications for same-sex couples. >> and then my face-to-face interview with president carter. >> wiping out a disease from the face of the earth, does that pop maybe everything else? >> i think in a personal way maybe it does because it affects so many people. >> i'll tell you about that, plus what is the one thing president carter wished he would have done when he was president. it's go time. [♪ theme music ♪] >> cenk: now the nra is used to running rough shot over our politics in this country, but all of a sudden they have a significant foe, his name is major bloomberg and he is about to spend $12 million in ads targeting republicans and democrats who are waivering on this issue. >> my dad taught me to hunt and i'll teach my kids. background checks have nothing to do with taking guns away from anyone. i want to prot
covergirl. >>> next week the u.s. supreme court will hear challenges to appropriatition 8 and doma. arguably the two most for cases involving gay rights ever to go before the high court. already right now as i speak to you, a line of people looking to attend the arguments. began form three day ace go. first case on tuesday will be collingsworth v. perry. proposition 8. at issue is whether the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment prohibits california from defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. in 2010, u.s. district court ruled that prop 8 was unconstitutional. then a little over a year ago, the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld that decision. president obama's justice department submitted an amicus brief last month urging the court to overturn prop 8 saying the president and attorney general have determined the classification based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny for equal protection. on wednesday, the court will hear united states v. windsor, challenge of the defense of marriage act. whether section 3 of doma, defines marriages be
that they may create and raise in the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act, passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry denying them 1,000 federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when they are spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $360,000. >> if the federal government recognized the marriage it would have been zero. >> reporter: president obama now says it is unconstitutional. >> the basic principle that america is founded on, the idea that we're all created equal, applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our financing a lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure we know what's constitutional and what isn't. >> reporter: the court hears the doma case on wednesda
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
at that point because they're hearing arguments on the defense of marriage act. doma denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own state. and then friday, all right, car enthusiasts get to new york. the new york auto show kicks off. the nine-day event features about 1,000 vehicles and will, of course, show off hot new cars and trucks from around the world and all the technology that goes in them. >>> we told you about the defensive marriage act up for debate on wednesday. thousands of couples across the country affected by the supreme court decision and cnn joe johns spoke to one of those couples. joe? >> christi, the defensive marriage act has been the law of the land since 1996. though its title may sound harmless enough, gay and lesbian americans all over the country claim the law has caused enormous damage, claiming that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. jamel thomas and corinne williams were together four years before they got married last october. don't let the wedding dresses fool you. their lives are not all saturn and pearls. >> i am a
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
, and then it will make on doma defining marriage as the marriage between a man and a women. a sign of the intense public interest over both cases with be seen outside of the court where lines started forming with people braving the cold as early as last thursday, the supreme court showdown comes as the political ground is shifting. an abc poll shows a record high 58% of americans now support same-sex marriage. today we saw mark warner come out in support of same-sex marriage and joins senator claire mcaskill who announced her support over the weekend. jay rockfeller spent "the war room" a statement saying quote . . . bravo senator. karl rove said that he could imagine a 2016 gop candidate in favor of gay marriage. wow. but will the supreme court's decision bring ground breaking change. joining me to discuss this is our political friend christine pelosi, chair of the california democratic party women's caucus, and she shares the party platform when they adopted marriage equality. what is at steak? >> most immediately at steak are the 18,000 same-sex couples which got married.
president bill clinton, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is not accurate. i have asked jeffrey toobin to explain this. >> all we can say is that president clinton believes it was a mistake and whatever justification he had in 1996 was not good enough, and he, like virtually the entire democratic party now, repudiates it and they want to see it overturned. >> this is not a thumb's up or thumb's down decision, right? this is the supreme court, and so what are we looking at here? >> well, this is a bit of a rubik's cube, and both the defense of marriage act case and the challenge to proposition 8, the case that the law that bans same-sex marriage in california. the defense of marriage act case refers to the federal law that says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it is legal. so people, and gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it is legal, they cannot file joint tax return, and they can't get social security survivor's benefits and if the court up
wrote, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is in fact imcompatible with our constitution. he said, back then it was less of a condemnation of legal marriage and a bit of legal maneuveri maneuvering. i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistake to sign doma. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wuntd good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get
of marriage act - or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue." >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." >> reporter: i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> a view from the golden gate. with rainfall, coming up. . [ female announcer ] safeway presents real big deals of the week. or how to get great prices on things you need for easter. we know you look around for the best deals, that's why we give you real big club card deals each week. right now a juicy smoked shank half ham is just 99 cents a pound. let's bake. safeway sugar is $1.97 for four pounds. and chobani greek yogurt is just a buck. r
another law. doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks federal recognition of same sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about 1,000 federal benefits the other married couples get. when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a bill from the irs for $363,000. >> i was heart sick. i lost the love of my life and i was heart sick. with this incredible expense. >> reporter: after president obama concluded the law is unconstitutional, house republicans entered the case to defend doma. >> thanks to pete williams who will join our coverage tomorrow and wednesday, if the high court strikes down doma, that would not automatically require states to permit same-sex marriage but the ruling could be a game changer for what all states are allowed to do. let's spin. jonathan capehart, friend of the show hark as piece out in the "washington post" today where he says, i don't think lgbt american fully appreciate how ten with us thing are on the court right now. he is very cautious. in factoring argues that the shift in social acceptance of gay marriage rec
windsor. she is challenging doma, the defense of marriage act. she said she was forced to pay taxes when her wife died. >> it was incredible expense. >> meanwhile, people who want to witness the cases firsthand began lining up outside the court on thursday. using tents, tarps, even umbrellas to shelter from today's snowfall. they're hoping to receive one of the roughly 60 seats available to the public. we learn one of those who will be inside the court is the lesbian couple of chief justice john roberts. jean podrasky will attend the hearings with her partner of four years. podrasky said this about her cousin. i believe he sees where the tide is going. i do trust him. i absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction. public opinion on same sex marriage has shifted dramatically. a recent poll shows 58% think it should be legal. that is up, 37% just a decade ago. justice correspondent pete williams is live in washington. a lot of details there but we know there are many options for the supreme court in a decision here in both these cases. >> right. let's start with prop 8. the court
as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we send our elected representatives to washington, d.c. an they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it is clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a post-doma united states. >> reporter: still, california as one of only a handful of states that gives most of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples and domestic partnerships. one question is whether any ruling by the court on california could affect all of those other states in the same way. pred? >> thanks so much, joe. >>> so is there a feeling that the landscape on gay marr
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
- or doma - that legally defines marriage as between a man and woman. conservative leader rand paul says he believes in traditional marriage, but not doma. >> "i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in, but i also don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue." >> reporter: although recent polls show a majority of americans support of same sex marriage, california's attorney general says it's more important to read the constitution. >> "i am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because because they are simply unconstitutional." i'm cristina mutchler reporting for kron 4 news. >> secretary of state john kerry says he's made it clear to iraq that it shouldn't allow iran to use its airspace to ship weapons and fighters to syria. u-s officials believe shipments on iranian overflights are transporting weapons and fighters to the embattled syrian government. kerry says iraq's behavior in allowing use of the airspace raises questions about the country's reliability as a partner. >> a mall in los angeles is open again after more than a thousand wor
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
. >>> proposition 8 and doma are about to have their day in court. but can the gop unstick itself and its platform from the 1950s? >>> and a former president is channeling bob ross by spending his time painting tacky little dogs. "new york" magazine art critic jerry saltz will tell us why this may be the best thing george w. bush has ever done. hang around. it's monday. a brand new start. your chance to rise and shine. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner, you can do just that. with our visionary cloud infrastructure, global broadband network and custom communications solutions, your business is more reliable - secure - agile. and with responsive, dedicated support, we help you shine every day of the week. these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. >>> it's been an
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
incomparable in the house. the idea that it drove the adoption of doma -- >> it was an election year and a people do not have the political power to protect themselves. >> i want to ask whether, are there any intermediate positions between striking doma down entirely end up holding? i do not think so. >> you said that there are different cases. they are. statesstion is, do these have the authority to retain the traditional state of marriage? not that they have to. need a? it is the question on both. >> not asking you to yield their position. are there any interim positions in the case that the court could find between on the one hand doing what they suggested, to stay -- say the states have the full power to uphold or to change or do anything was same- sex marriages? and what the strongest view of the challengers is in prop. 8 our calls distinguishes unconstitutional. is a standing argument. >> it would be in a weird way. it would probably mean that there be marriage equality restored in california. >> why? quiet the judgments stays in effect. the that is clear at all. it is more tha
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
the supreme court to strike down doma. and now on the heels that, hillary clinton coming out in support of marriage equality. >> well that's right. i think most people assumed that secretary clinton was for it. but she wasn't in a political position in the administration. i don't think you'll see any viable democratic candidate in 2016 who's going to make it through the primary oppose gay marriage. you saw rush by governors like o'malley and cuomo to stay they supported it. the vice president. even after the announcement of senator portman and all these republican consultants you simply can't be a democratic candidate in 2016 and oppose same-sex marriage. >> susan, your reaction to this. again, this is on the heels of the fact that rob portman made this fantastic declaration of how he supports his kid and wants him to be able to achieve marriage equality in the country. a big tauurnaround in the republican party. this is huge for hillary clinton. >> i agree with ben 100%. no democrat in the 2016 campaign is going to be opposed to marriage equality. before this, she was not pro-marriage
the defense of marriage act into law wrote an op-ed piece saying he believes that doma is, quote, incompatible with our constitution. the white house becomed hillary clinton to the majority side of marriage equality today. >> i can tell you that the president believes any time a public official of stature steps forward to embrace a commitment that he shares to equality for lbgt americans he thinks is a good thing. >> first of all, who is doing the lighting for that video? more godfather-y than i expected, that dark brooding look. >> it reminded me of the video she -- when she announced in 2008, it was that kind of soft, sing songy voice and lighting. listen, i don't think it is a surprise she has come out for same sex marriage. interesting this is her first post secretary of state announcement and now there's a lot of buzz around her possibly running in 2016. i think we have seen dramatic shift in public opinion. it happened swiftly. i remain shocked how much changed in the last couple years. if you go back to 2008, bush ran against same sex marriage and that in many ways helped him in states
this the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about one thousand federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $363,000. >> if the federal government had recognized the marriage, it would have been zero. zero. >> reporter: after first supporting doma, president obama now says it's unconstitutional. >> basic principle that america is founded on. the idea that we're all created equal. applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. and our phillipsing of the lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what isn't. >> that was nbc's pete wil
's prop 8. the other on the defense of marriage act, doma. will the supreme court follow public opinion? or will it stand and yell, stop? >>> in the 1970s the republican party began two decades in the wilderness when it swung too far to the left from where the country was at the time. now it's the republican party's turn. new polling suggests the gop is at its worst. the hard right is trying to keep itself in office and the party out of the white house, it seems. >>> remember last year how republicans were insisting all the calls were dead wrong right up until mitt romney actually lost? with those numbers? and even after that? well, they're at it again. now it's the polls on gay marriage that are wrong they say. all those polls are wrong. don't believe a word of them, they say. >>> finally, let me finish with people who were the cheerleaders, when their job was to be referee. the press. in the buildup to the iraq war. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro. omnipotent of opportunity. you know how to mix business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national le
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
environment -- i would be hard to imagine if in june they come back with the ruling on the doma case and prop 8 case and they maintain doma and maintain -- it's just hard to imagine in this environment. there would be such a backlash. the public is so ahead of where these laws were in 2004 and 2008. >> bill: absolutely. 866-55-press if you want to weigh in on this very very significant movement in the direction in support of marriage equality. you mentioned and you referred to the -- we love the phrase autopsy. in that this is what the republicans are calling it the point we have made here several times. it's an unusual choice of a phrase -- if you want -- that you do not perform autopsy on bodies you expect to come back to life. >> they are dead. >> bill: exactly they are cold. but that's what they are calling it. at any rate, one of the things is outreach. we're going to spend $10 million reaching out to women and to blacks and to latinos and they are already violating it you report on think progress. >> they violated moments after -- you have this big endorse
, that is continuing to finance the defense of doma, it is a matter of policy -- >> confusing things here. let's not confuse the issue administration must position that it was unconstitutional. it was not their role to decide what was constitution. it was a lot that was signed into president -- into law by president clinton, and in our system of government, the administration does not get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. our defense of the lawsuit is to make sure the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what is not. to circle back -- [indiscernible] i wanted to ask you about the debt limit. weeks off, then back for three weeks. >> are you going to stick for dollar for dollar? but dollar for dollar is the plan, and we have had some discussions, but not any big discussions at this point. >> you perceive this whole budget issue, the sequester, has all been pushed up to august, are you open that those conversations with the president, are we gearing down for a showdown in august? >> we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester w
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
takes up marriage equality. hearing arguments on california's proposition 8 on tuesday and then doma on wednesday. lbgt groups are planning over 100 events across the country to mark the historic legal debate. this is as a new abc news/"the washington post" poll shows support for marriage equality is at an all-time high riding at 58%. joining me to talk more about this is marriage equality director brian silva. it is great to have you here. as we talk more about that poll and we dig deeper we look at the evaluation of the youth vote. 18-year-olds to 29-year-olds. they back marriage equality at a wlo whopping 81%. yesterday hillary clinton came outputting that statement on vhrc website. her husband came out on march 7th for marriage equality to strike down doma. we have senator portman coming out. we have huntsman that's come out for marriage equality. has the tide turned? >> yes. there is a reason i have a big smile on my face. it's been a great time for marriage equality. we have folks across the political spectrum, the faith, the age spectrum. the super majority of americans believ
marriage cases including doma, the defense of marriage act. our panel, newt gingrich, evan byah, jennifer rubin of the "washington post" and, fox news analyst juan williams. you oppose same sex marriage but want to see the court make a sweeping decision or a narrow decision to leave it where it is now in various state legislatures. >> they are making the point, look at the percentage of support. if that is true, over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. they would be far better off to decide the cases on the narrowest possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against -- >> a huge mistake and undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator, how far would you like to see the court go and how far do you expect them to go. >> it means trying to read the mind of justice kennedy and my guess is he'd be reluctant to strike down the laws of the 41 states that currently prohibit same sex marriage or allow civil unions. but, on the other hand, seize the broad sweep of history here, the direction the countr
possible. i'm sorry. i think they're going to decide it on the prop 8 case on -- and doma on standing. on who has standing to bring. especially doma. they'll decide it on a narrow -- that somebody doesn't have standing to bring the case and same with prop 8. so it will overturn it. it will overturn prop 8 in california. i think that's gone. without a doubt. but i'm going to hold out the big optimistic, just let everybody get married decision. i don't hope -- i hope for that but i don't believe it will happen. >> stephanie: what makes me nervous is whin you have somebody like a -- is when you have -- i was just doing a hernia test on jim. you have somebody like ruth bader ginsburg, she's pro-choice but roe v. wade did it create a backlash. that's a little unnerving right? >> right. except that i think the nation's ready for that. i mean you know, especially young people. what is it? 80% of young people are people under 30 -- that's young people. i feel so old. >> stephanie: all right grandpa. >> get off my lawn! >> stephanie: drop the prunes for a minute. go ahead. >> that they support
Search Results 0 to 48 of about 49 (some duplicates have been removed)